Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.PDF

Preview of PDF document motion-to-set-aside-default-judgment.pdf

Page 1 2 34518

Text preview

to do business in Missouri which no longer maintained a registered agent) by delivering the
Summons and Petition to the Secretary of State. Instead, and with knowledge that WBDP had
never received the Summons and Petition, Plaintiffs improperly obtained a Default Judgment
against WBDP – at a time when WBDP was unaware that these claims were being adjudicated.

Procedural History
Plaintiffs City of Joplin (“COJ”) and Joplin Redevelopment Corporation (“JRC”) filed this
lawsuit against WBDP and its two principals, David Wallace (“Mr. Wallace”) and Costa Bajjali
(“Mr. Bajjali”) on March 25, 2015. Ex. C-1 (Plaintiffs’ Original Petition). A Summons was
issued for each of the three Defendants, but Plaintiffs only sought to effect service on Defendant
WBDP. Ex. C (Docket Entry Sheet); Ex. C-2 (WBDP Summons). On April 3, 2015, the
Summons issued for Defendant WBDP was delivered to its former registered agent, CT
Corporation System (“CT”) in Clayton, Missouri. Ex. C-4 (WBDP Return of Service); Ex. B, at ¶
4. On that same day, CT sent written notice to Plaintiff’s counsel, with the notice copied to the
Court, advising both that:
We are returning documents served received for [WBDP].
According to our records, our statutory representation services were
discontinued and all process sent to the last known address on our
records was returned as undeliverable.
Since we do not have any other address in our files to which we can
forward the papers, we are returning them to you and filing
resignation of agent in all states where permitted.
Please understand that we take no position as to the validity of the
service. We are merely stating that after reasonable efforts, we do
not have any address to which to forward the papers.
Ex. C-3 (Letter from CT). Included with the letter which CT sent by regular mail to Mr.
Blanchard was the Summons and Original Petition which CT had received from the process server.
Ex. B, at ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. C-3
It is undisputed that CT did not forward the Summons and Petition to WBDP, since those
items were promptly returned to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Ex. B, at ¶¶ 4-5. The copy of CT’s letter to
Plaintiff’s counsel (which was mailed to the Court) was received and filed by the Court Clerk on
D’s 74.05(d) Motion - Page 3 of 18

Electronically Filed - Jasper County - Joplin - November 01, 2015 - 07:10 PM

At that point, Plaintiffs easily could have effected service on WBDP (as a foreign entity authorized